Editorial: Script limit idea just placebo that would not help problem

Published 4:30 am, Friday, March 31, 2017

There is a special degree of agony standing in line waiting to have a prescription filled.

It has nothing to do with the store or the pharmacy workers; they are in their own private purgatory.

But think about the last time you needed medicine. Chances are you were feeling anything but your best and had to spend time sandwiched among the cast of the movie “Zombieland.”

Although it might have felt like forever — it seems anything that takes more than 30 seconds these days is an “eternity” — chances are it was merely minutes before your prescription was filled, the pharmacist discussed any questions you had, and you paid and left.

What if the person dispensing your medicine told you he or she had reached the limit for the hour and you would have to wait. And wait. And wait some more.

That might seem inconceivable, but groups are worried it’s what would happen under a proposal being considered by Illinois lawmakers.

Some legislators say they are concerned about pharmacists being overworked and how that could lead to mistakes in filling prescriptions.

Fair enough so far. Pharmacists can have hectic workdays, especially during seasonal outbreaks.

Lawmakers believe government intervention is the magic pill to make everything all right. They are considering limiting pharmacists to filling 10 prescriptions an hour — not filling the prescriptions of 10 people; filling 10 prescriptions. There would also be limits on how many hours a pharmacist could work each day and a mandatory hour-long break during every eight-hour shift.

If this were a result of studies that showed there were some issue and these changes would resolve those problems, it would be different. Although the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities acknowledges “more errors occur when pharmacists are … very busy” it also says others happen when things are “relatively quiet with regard to prescription workload.” It says medicine errors can be caused by a number of factors, from “frequent interruptions and distractions” to “poor physician handwriting.”

Although the group does suggest a “pharmacist working alone, with no technician assistance, should reasonably be able to dispense approximately 10 prescriptions per hour” it notes that is a “consistent, daily average” and not a hard-and-fast rule.

“Different pharmacists have different abilities and may perform different quantities of work more effectively and safely than others,” it says in its Medication Errors Prevention and Reduction Guidelines.

The volume of prescriptions that can be “safely” filled increases significantly when there are trained technicians to assist. That means the most significant effects could be felt among more rural or locally-owned drugstores more than corporate-owned pharmacies. Or the restrictions would either drive business from those smaller shops or cause them to have to increase costs to add staffing.

That’s why it isn’t surprising this legislation is heavily supported by unions representing several thousand Chicago-area pharmacists. Rep. Mary Flowers, the Chicago Democrat sponsoring the bill, told the Chicago Tribune the legislation was proposed because “it is just a matter of time before there will be a major catastrophe.”

Also not surprising is that the Illinois Pharmacists Association is opposed to the 10-prescription-an-hour limit, saying it just doesn’t make sense.

There is a lot more that goes into keeping people safe than those having prescriptions filled might realize. Pharmacists must ensure accuracy of the prescription, check for potential interactions with other medications and spend time discussing any concerns with the patient.

Pharmacists who are over-burdened or working with under-staffed crews deserve better conditions, and so do their patients. But imposing artificial solutions that add needless government oversight while failing to focus on individual issues is simply a placebo.